The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of individuals and associations from diverse backgrounds, linguistic traditions and professional experience in science communication and editing.

Wondering what everyones thoughts on this are. To me, this idea of pre-review was never what ‘portable’ peer review should be about.

I think this article takes a very narrow view of who can curate portable peer review, and that becasue a commercial enterprise failed, the whole idea of it has been torpedoed.

he point is, it should not be in any one set of hands, and that is possibly the reason it’s not taking off – because it’s being framed as a business operation like this, instead of free movement of reviews.

The pre-journal review that Rubriq offered wasn’t complementary to existing system, it was a sideways approach more about author-editing, than journal peer review. That’s not ‘portable peer review’, that’s a different service entirely.

Portable PR should be about a culture of efficiency between journals. It is not only a big money making scheme.

The neuroscience peer review consortium alliance has being going steadily and successfully for years. That is my personal benchmark and frame of reference for models of mobile peer review, and one that I don’t think has even been properly pursued on a wide enough scale.